Conflict Resolution Competence for Managers NIH Office of the Ombudsman Kevin Jessar, J.D., Ph.D. Deputy Ombudsman, NIH June 25, 2008.

Conflict Resolution Competence for Managers

NIH Office of the Ombudsman

Kevin Jessar, J.D., Ph.D.Deputy Ombudsman, NIH

June 25, 2008

Kenneth A. Lechter Kenneth A. Lechter Lynda T. O’SullivanLynda T. O’SullivanLiz WaetzigLiz Waetzig

Part I: IntroductionsPart I: Introductions

- 2008 PMAP requirement- Other reasons why such a requirement is

important

Contexts for Workshop

- Details: - Integrated Conflict Management Systems

- Conceptually- NIH

- Interest Based Negotiation Fundamentals- Cross Cultural Literary- NIH Resources

Workshop Overview

Part II: The Office of the Part II: The Office of the OmbudsmanOmbudsman

The Need for the Ombudsman

Impetus at NIH Joint venture of OIR, HR,

and EEO

Limits of formal systems

Organizational self-correction

Flexibility

Formal systems Are often limited and ill

suited to providing solutions

Fail to help people identify and expand options

Exacerbate tensions and conflicts

Are unavailable for many things arising in the life of an organization

E.g., Claim of scientific misconduct/ fraud

Kevin Jessar, NIH/CCR, January 2007

Ombudsman – resource to all NIH staff to address any workplace concern

Confidential: off the record resource, except threats of violence; no one has to know you contacted us

Neutral: as to person, position, outcome

Informal/ Flexible: able to address things for which there are not procedures

Independent: not integrated into line management

•Especially reassuring to employees and managers

Ombudsman trademarks – What We Do:

• Identify issues and options

• Clarify desired outcomes

• Strategize – to whom and how can I best raise this issue or concern?

• Assist with thinking through difficult situations (personally, professionally)

• Facilitate understanding and resolution

• Pursue organizational development NIH-wide through systemic feedback

All of this is done in a confidential, neutral setting – with someone familiar with NIH culture.

Ombudsman trademarks – How We Assist:

We offer (Generally): Coaching - Sounding-board; “Devil’s

advocate”Referral Facilitating difficult discussions (or mediation) Shuttle diplomacy Systems feedback Use of scientific consultants

Part III: Managing Conflict (and Emotion)

““[A]t the risk of considerable overgeneralization, the data [A]t the risk of considerable overgeneralization, the data suggest that as a group, science and technical suggest that as a group, science and technical professional are poorly attuned to the dynamics of their professional are poorly attuned to the dynamics of their interactions with others and to the needs and feelings of interactions with others and to the needs and feelings of those around them” (5).those around them” (5).

““[T]hought and deliberation [are] focused on scientific and [T]hought and deliberation [are] focused on scientific and technical matters and not at all on interpersonal technical matters and not at all on interpersonal consequences” (7). consequences” (7).

Paradox: These findings come at a time when scientific : These findings come at a time when scientific research is increasingly cross-disciplinary and moving research is increasingly cross-disciplinary and moving towards a team science approach – both of which more towards a team science approach – both of which more urgently require these collaborative skills.urgently require these collaborative skills.

Cohen and Cohen in Lab Dynamics argue:

Studies found as well that scientists and technical professionals are largely emotionally stable, impulse controlled, and open and flexible in thought and behavior.

“What this suggests is that despite less-than-optimal interpersonal skills, technical professionals have a high capacity, motivation, and willingness to learn and improve. What they need is data showing the utility of improvement, as well as the opportunity to learn” (Cohen and Cohen 9).

Emotions running high can . . . Emotions running high can . . . Narrow our vision and creativityNarrow our vision and creativityStifle curiosity, openness and playfulness of Stifle curiosity, openness and playfulness of

mind needed to solve problemsmind needed to solve problemsSuppress our recognition of nuances - Suppress our recognition of nuances -

complex matrix of feeling and cognitioncomplex matrix of feeling and cognitionReflect perception by participants that identity Reflect perception by participants that identity

is somehow threatenedis somehow threatened

What Makes workplace conflicts difficult?

We cannot say that emotion should not We cannot say that emotion should not enter in to the situationenter in to the situation

Once aroused emotions do not go awayOnce aroused emotions do not go awayThere is often a symmetrical nature of There is often a symmetrical nature of

emotional response – when someone raises emotional response – when someone raises their voice at you at you, you are more likely their voice at you at you, you are more likely to do the sameto do the same

It can be difficult to work with emotions It can be difficult to work with emotions when you are in a conflict – thus a 3when you are in a conflict – thus a 3 rdrd party party neutral can assistneutral can assist

Harvard PON research suggests Harvard PON research suggests underneath the multiplicity of emotions are underneath the multiplicity of emotions are 5 core concerns5 core concerns

AppreciationAppreciationAffiliationAffiliationAutonomyAutonomyStatusStatusRoleRole

Each difficult conversation is really three difficult conversations

The “what happened?” conversation – truth, intentions and blame

The feelings conversation – feelings are an intrinsic part of difficult conversations

The identity conversation – Am I competent? Am I a good person? Am I worthy of love?

Before starting the difficult conversation Before starting the difficult conversation determinedetermine

What is your What is your purposepurpose in having this in having this conversation? What do you hope to conversation? What do you hope to accomplish?accomplish?

Is this the Is this the best way to addressbest way to address the issue and the issue and achieve your purpose?achieve your purpose?

DifferentiateDifferentiate between attributing “blame” and between attributing “blame” and understanding “contribution.” Blame looks understanding “contribution.” Blame looks backward, understanding looks to the future.backward, understanding looks to the future.

Once the conversation begins Once the conversation begins Start from the third story – the difference Start from the third story – the difference

between your story and theirs.between your story and theirs. Incorporate both perspectives in the Incorporate both perspectives in the

discussion.discussion. Make clear what your purpose is.Make clear what your purpose is. Invite the other to join as a partner in sorting Invite the other to join as a partner in sorting

out the situation.out the situation.

Exploring the storiesExploring the stories Try to understand the other’s perspective.Try to understand the other’s perspective. Acknowledge feelings about the issue.Acknowledge feelings about the issue. Share your viewpoint, intentions and Share your viewpoint, intentions and

feelings.feelings. Try to figure out how your differences Try to figure out how your differences

developed.developed.

Part IV: “Interest-Based” Communication

As youAs you Focus on the issuesFocus on the issues Explore all interests underlying issuesExplore all interests underlying issues Look for possibilities and opportunities and Look for possibilities and opportunities and Work toward satisfying the interests of all partiesWork toward satisfying the interests of all parties . . . . . .

Listening, Question-Asking, (Re)Framing will Listening, Question-Asking, (Re)Framing will be keys to successful resolutionbe keys to successful resolution

Handling Conflict: How can you gain perspective to handle a conflict optimally?

Broadening Perspective: Listening Broadening Perspective: Listening

What do we Sense? What data have we picked up or missed? How do we Think and Feel about the

situation? Beliefs based on past experienceInterpretations of eventsExpectations for the future

How do we then feel?Based on thinking process

How do we Act?What have we been doing/what have we tried? What options do we have for future?

Interest-Clarifying Questions: What need/concern does this satisfy? What makes that important? How is that useful? What will having this do for you?

Broadening Perspective: Asking Useful Questions

Broadening Perspective: ReframingBroadening Perspective: Reframing

Changing the wording or characterization of something to make it Changing the wording or characterization of something to make it easier to understand, easier to accept, or more conducive to joint easier to understand, easier to accept, or more conducive to joint problem-solving.problem-solving.

New concept must be data-based – i.e., grounded in the statements, New concept must be data-based – i.e., grounded in the statements, facts provided.facts provided.

Useful for Useful for Moving from positions to interests;Moving from positions to interests; Giving parties another perspective;Giving parties another perspective; De-escalating conflict;De-escalating conflict; Moving from past to present & futureMoving from past to present & future

Difficult interactions (or people) may reflect and be reframed to:Difficult interactions (or people) may reflect and be reframed to: Difficult issuesDifficult issues Difficult tacticsDifficult tactics Difficult frames (tragic, debunking, etc.)Difficult frames (tragic, debunking, etc.) Difficult systems issues Difficult systems issues

Risk: Provoking mistakesRisk: Provoking mistakes

Broadening Perspective: ReframingBroadening Perspective: Reframing

ReframingReframing – – ExamplesExamples::1. Frame issues as 1. Frame issues as questions or problem statementsquestions or problem statements.. ““How can we . . . ?” “What can be done to . . .?”How can we . . . ?” “What can be done to . . .?”2. Frame issues so that 2. Frame issues so that multiple solutionsmultiple solutions are possible. are possible. Wrong: Who will have use of the centrifuge?Wrong: Who will have use of the centrifuge? Better: ?Better: ?3. Separate 3. Separate issuesissues or or problemsproblems from from peoplepeople. De-personalize conflict.. De-personalize conflict. Wrong: Let’s talk about John’s hogging all of the reagents.Wrong: Let’s talk about John’s hogging all of the reagents. Better:Better: ? ?4. Frame issues in terms of the 4. Frame issues in terms of the situationsituation or or relationship relationship of the parties rather than in terms of the parties rather than in terms

of the person’s attitudes or behavior. of the person’s attitudes or behavior. Wrong: Let’s talk about your negative attitude to helping anyone in the lab.Wrong: Let’s talk about your negative attitude to helping anyone in the lab. Better:Better: ? ?5. Frame issues so that they are a 5. Frame issues so that they are a joint problemjoint problem.. Wrong: How can Jean let everyone know on time when she’s changed lab policy on Wrong: How can Jean let everyone know on time when she’s changed lab policy on

using the centrifuge?using the centrifuge? Better:Better: ? ?6. Frame issues in terms of 6. Frame issues in terms of futurefuture relationships rather than guilt or innocence. relationships rather than guilt or innocence. Wrong: Could we decide who was at fault for the samples being lost? Wrong: Could we decide who was at fault for the samples being lost? Better: ?Better: ?7. Frame issues in a manner that does 7. Frame issues in a manner that does not threatennot threaten any party’s sense of self or security. any party’s sense of self or security. Wrong: Let’s talk about the insensitive way the PI gives criticism.Wrong: Let’s talk about the insensitive way the PI gives criticism. Better:Better: ? ?8. Frame issues in an 8. Frame issues in an objectiveobjective and and neutralneutral manner. manner. Wrong: Let’s talk about why the staff scientist is incompetent.Wrong: Let’s talk about why the staff scientist is incompetent. Better: ?Better: ?